Do you believe in God?

[McLaren]

Understood.

But it does (seem) to be common:

Adult stars all gave the same answer when asked about negative impact career had on their lives

The adult stars have opened up about the negatives of their careers

www.ladbible.com

Yes, but the names I recognize are still in the industry. The article itself highlights that despite Riley's concerns of a relationship & having children, she's married with a child and that has not pushed her into retiring. Not that she should if she doesn't want to; the comments she was concerned about regarding people attacking her child are a reflection of a-holes on the web & not porn.

On top of that, the women have described their inability to have a normal relationship. Again, that's a consequence of being in the industry, but I don't believe that's unique to porn. I have a strong feeling even Hollywood actors struggle to "find a partner that you truly connect with.” The issue Riley went through with her mom sucking off her wealth has definitely gone on in Hollywood. As for the man, yeah, performance drugs have long been an issue. As mentioned before though, that's why many of porn's participants transfer to OnlyFans b/c they control their content.

I'm not saying all of this is perfectly acceptable, but this stuff comes with the territory of being involved in the industry (excluding the child remarks; that's unacceptable regardless of profession) & since they're still participating, clearly they've wagered it's something they want to do. It doesn't seem like any of them are advocating for the removal of porn though & we seem to transitioning from the talks of porn addiction in the consumer base to discussing how the workers in the industry deal with their own negatives.

 

[Danoff]

The Brain and Pornography Consumption

Kühn and Gallinat determine whether frequent pornography consumption is associated with the frontostriatal network.

jamanetwork.com

The frequency of pornography consumption has been shown to predict various negative outcome measures in humans. A representative Swedish study on adolescent boys has shown that boys with daily consumption showed more interest in deviant and illegal types of pornography and more frequently reported the wish to actualize what was seen in real life.1,6-8 In partnerships, a decrease in sexual satisfaction and a tendency to adopt pornographic scripts have been associated with frequent Internet pornography consumption.9 A longitudinal study following Internet users has found that accessing pornography online was predictive of compulsive computer use after 1 year.10 Taken together, the aforementioned findings support the assumption that pornography has an impact on the behavior and social cognition of its consumers. Therefore, we assume that pornography consumption, even on a nonaddicted level, may have an impact on brain structure and function. However, to our knowledge, the brain correlates associated with frequent pornography consumption have not been investigated so far.

Henry, I know you and I (and others) have discussed causation vs. correlation at length. At looooooong length.

For example "In partnerships, a decrease in sexual satisfaction and a tendency to adopt pornographic scripts have been associated with frequent Internet pornography consumption." Uh... sexual dissatisfaction and an interest in role playing is precisely where I'd expect to see someone consuming porn*. And not because it was caused by porn.

Correlation is not causation.

*I mean... I expect to find it wherever there are men

 

[Duke]

Well that’s why I placed the sentence before the ones you quoted: “It’s not for me to convert you.”.

Indeed, many people have commented about how I carry myself and notice something different about me compared to other people they meet. For sure I tell them why and if they want to have a conversation and learn more of why then we talk.

I agree with your closing thoughts. Again, it’s in my last two sentences.

OK, I will take your word for it. I read it a different way, but I'm glad to hear that you are a passive, or reactive, evangelist rather than an active, proactive one.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Henry, I know you and I (and others) have discussed causation vs. correlation at length. At looooooong length.

For example "In partnerships, a decrease in sexual satisfaction and a tendency to adopt pornographic scripts have been associated with frequent Internet pornography consumption." Uh... sexual dissatisfaction and an interest in role playing is precisely where I'd expect to see someone consuming porn*. And not because it was caused by porn.

Correlation is not causation.

*I mean... I expect to find it wherever there are men

Indeed, the authors are careful with their conclusions:

The negative association of self-reported pornography consumption with the right striatum (caudate) volume, left striatum (putamen) activation during cue reactivity, and lower functional connectivity of the right caudate to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex could reflect change in neural plasticity as a consequence of an intense stimulation of the reward system, together with a lower top-down modulation of prefrontal cortical areas. Alternatively, it could be a precondition that makes pornography consumption more rewarding.

Still, it is impacting opinions on sexual experiences:

Young Women’s Attitudes and Concerns Regarding Pornography and Their Sexual Experiences: A Qualitative Approach - PMC

This study explores female university students’ attitudes toward and concerns about pornography, based on their experience watching it and on sexual encounters with men. It used a qualitative descriptive design. Individual semi-structured interviews ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I haven't tried to get access to this one:

Pornography and attitudes supporting violence against women: revisiting the relationship in nonexperimental studies - PubMed

A meta-analysis was conducted to determine whether nonexperimental studies revealed an association between men's pornography consumption and their attitudes supporting violence against women. The meta-analysis corrected problems with a previously published meta-analysis and added more recent...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

But the summary sounds interesting (from 2010 however)

-------

I'm interested.

What is the consensus on OxyContin?

I'm sure we wouldn't say there's nothing bad about alcohol (?), but what about a pain-relieving medication that is highly addictive....

There does seem to be this dogma in addiction therapy (at least in the UK) that a god or "higher power" pretty much has to be submitted to as part of the cure, and I'm not sure it is helping as many patients as it could.

 

[05XR8]

OK, I will take your word for it. I read it a different way, but I'm glad to hear that you are a passive, or reactive, evangelist rather than an active, proactive one.

For sure. Some are called to cast a net and see who will listen or those that do want to know more. Some are called to meet individuals where they are(in life).
Reading from the posts HenrySwanson directed me to(goodness gracious), what’s missing in trying to explain in those posts, is the reason. I’ll try to articulate my thoughts as best I can.

It’s all about coming to God, as a child. Children soak up lots of knowledge, ask questions and are pretty much true with no filter. That’s how we as adults need to be. It gets lost by many as we grow older. The children suffer by being denied the opportunity to experience God’s love. In the context of what was going on in that passage, disciples feeling a certain way(imagine that) about Jesus allowing children to be blessed by Him. Why should children not be blessed?
I volunteered as a Sunday School teacher in my late teens early twenties and I volunteered at a Catholic Youth Organisation in my early thirties. I learned a lot from the teens that I met. Amazingly, most of it by listening to them.

I would say I’m fortunate to grow up in the family(everyone from my parents, siblings, relatives and friends) around me. My Father was in the picture, but he wasn’t living with us and didn’t deny us anything. My mother didn’t command that we go to church. She led by example whether we got up on Sunday or not. She didn’t Bible bash us and tell us we’re going to hell if we didn’t accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. She left that for us to decide. What she did as commanded by God, is to love us first. Be that light for us to see that God is working in her.
This is why I speak on my own experiences. I have to. Everyone are different. Everyone are at different stages/points in their lives where it’s hard to make sweeping general comments about everyone. That’s just me.

 

[TexRex]

I'm interested.

 

[HenrySwanson]

The first episode of "Surviving Death" on Netflix is worth watching.

Not sure if anyone has taken up this recommendation.

Does it tie into Christianity? Would that be the Kingdom of God?

EDIT: Like the earlier vid, many of the experiences describe a "light". One of the more memorable accounts is from a Christian doctor. There is another case where someone is operated on and they described the instruments being used which shocked the patient's neurosurgeon (although if you check the wiki, an anaesthetist has contended that this could have been possible if we discount the supernatural).

Could seizures and non-epileptic seizures (previously called "pseudoseizures") be similar to NDE....

 

[HenrySwanson]

If "God" came down, in all "His" glory, and stood in front of me. Then, "He" showed me all of "His" works and creations.

I'd point at "His" chest and flick "His" nose as "He" looked down to see what I was pointing at. Then I'd run around "His" back and pull the waistband of "His" underpants up and over "His" head. While "He" is flapping "His" arms trying to free "Himself" from the wedgie, I'd tie "His" shoelaces together and then tip "Him" over.

What if those who are religious, but especially Christians have it all wrong?

What if, in Dante's Inferno, the ninth circle of Hell was where God resided, with the left followers?

Dante's Hell is divided into nine circles, the ninth circle being divided further into four rings, their boundaries only marked by the depth of their sinners' immersion in the ice; Satan sits in the last ring, Judecca. It is in the fourth ring of the ninth circle, where the worst sinners, the betrayers to their benefactors, are punished. Here, these condemned souls, frozen into the ice, are completely unable to move or speak and are contorted into all sorts of fantastical shapes as a part of their punishment.

Unlike many other circles of Dante's Hell, these sinners remain unnamed. Even Dante is afraid to enter this last circle, as he nervously proclaimed, "I drew behind my leader’s back again."

Uncharacteristically of Dante, he remains silent in Satan's presence. Dante examines the sinners who are "covered wholly by ice, / showing like straw in glass – some lying prone, / and some erect, some with the head towards us, / the others with the bottoms of the feet; another like a bow bent feet to face." This circle of Hell is a complete separation from any life and, for Dante, "the deepest isolation is to suffer separation from the source of all light and life and warmth.

Consider the game Braid

MAJOR SPOILERS for Braid:

Spoiler

You think you're the hero, the "knight in shining armour", the "good guy" right up until the last level. Play through it, and you still go around "saving" the princess and unlocking traps together as you try to escape. But then it plays in reverse (forwards). YOU are the monster, with the princess setting traps to hinder your progress. Maybe this is humanity's relationship with God.

 

[Ghost Lap]

That passage relates to a situation in which people are so oversaturated with wordly possesions that they are indifferent towards the Lord.
Stll Jesus is there and saying after that, that all that is required to be welcomed is to welcome him - which directly relates to the passage your are quoting in the hopes of invalidation but now you have validated it.

To truly welcome him comes at a heavy cost though, there's a great deal of difference between a so called worldly Christian (lukewarm believer) and a true follower of Christ (The way to God).

 

[Liquid]

You know that's a film, right?

Are you really submitting a work of fiction as some sort of backup to a claim of divinity? You must see the astonishing irony in that.

 

[ItsHim]

To truly welcome him comes at a heavy cost though, there's a great deal of difference between a so called worldly Christian (lukewarm believer) and a true follower of Christ (The way to God).

I don’t know about that. I used to be a Roman Catholic and thus my rule book was the Catechism. That’s the rule book, that’s the standards, that’s what I was supposed to believe. I should have a copy somewhere still.

And there’s no need for interpretation as well as everything in there is as straightforward as it can be.

As a Roman Catholic you don’t get to set your own standards and rules and you don’t get to talk back. Rome sets the bar, your bishop is your local authority and you do as you’re told and that’s the end of it.

Other beliefs might handle this differently, I wouldn’t know.

 

[Ghost Lap]

I don’t know about that. I used to be a Roman Catholic and thus my rule book was the Catechism. That’s the rule book, that’s the standards, that’s what I was supposed to believe. I should have a copy somewhere still.

And there’s no need for interpretation as well as everything in there is as straightforward as it can be.

As a Roman Catholic you don’t get to set your own standards and rules and you don’t get to talk back. Rome sets the bar, your bishop is your local authority and you do as you’re told and that’s the end of it.

The many different interpretations probably stem from the creation of modern Christianity which has it's roots in Constantines Rome and has evolved throughout history to present day.

It's like on this thread I think that many have garnered a wrong interpretation of what Christ was actually like. It's like they think he was all sunshine and rainbows and peace and love all the time, whereas he seems more about hard love and telling people the truth of what they actually needed to hear over people pleasing and telling them what they wanted to hear. (Like the time he got real angry about the selling of animals in the so called Temple).

I guess the question is would you rather follow the standards and rules of God's ways as set by Christ himself or would you follow the standards and traditions set by man based off the teachings of Christ but edited to fit in with the workings of the world at the given time. (I could imagine that worldy Christianity has been heavily inconsistent and ever changing with the times and the state of the world throughout history, I could be wrong but maybe you could enlighten me in the matter).

 

[Famine]

I guess the question is would you rather follow the standards and rules of God's ways as set by Christ himself or would you follow the standards and traditions set by man based off the teachings of Christ but edited to fit in with the workings of the world at the given time.

Given that the only (mild snort) evidence of Christ's behaviour is the Bible, they're one and the same.

 

[Ghost Lap]

Given that the only (mild snort) evidence of Christ's behaviour is the Bible, they're one and the same.

Do the ways of most modern Christians seem to mimick those of Christ himself to you? (An extreme example would be of the common posts you see on here of when a so called pastor or priest is caught having been accused of indecent behaviour with a minor).

 

[Famine]

Do the ways of most modern Christians seem to mimick those of Christ himself to you? (An extreme example would be of the common posts you see on here of when a so called pastor or priest is caught having been accused of indecent behaviour with a minor).

Amazingly, you've found yourself back at the beginning of two different conversations in this thread.

 

[Ghost Lap]

Amazingly, you've found yourself back at the beginning of two different conversations in this thread.

I'll take that as a clear "No".

 

[Famine]

I'll take that as a clear "No".

You can take it exactly as I said it, and not reinterpret it to suit with things I didn't say.

Your post mirrors that of two separate conversations - one about paedophile clergy, and one about how Christians don't behave like the Jesus of the Bible - posted by other people in this thread. Somehow, after lots of wibbling against both points, you've arrived right back at the start.


"Most modern Christians" I encounter are CofE churchgoers, and generally do behave as the Bible tells them Jesus said to.

 

[Scaff]

It's like on this thread I think that many have garnered a wrong interpretation of what Christ was actually like. It's like they think he was all sunshine and rainbows and peace and love all the time, whereas he seems more about hard love and telling people the truth of what they actually needed to hear over people pleasing and telling them what they wanted to hear.

You mean just like you're about to do with this...

(Like the time he got real angry about the selling of animals in the so called Temple).

...at the time of the story Christianity didn't exist, Jesus was Jewish and the temple in question was not just Jewish, but one of the most important Jewish temples in existence, and his dad's house! In referring to it as a 'so-called temple' you're interpreting it in a manner that is way off base with the original text.

 

[Ghost Lap]

"Most modern Christians" I encounter are CofE churchgoers, and generally do behave as the Bible tells them Jesus said to.

In what ways specifically are you referring to, do they prioritise their relationship with God 100% over anything else in their lives, are they comfortable with "Living not off bread alone but nothing but the word of God".

 

[Famine]

In what ways specifically are you referring to

I'm not.

However, you're about to make a list of how they should be acting according to your preferred version of your translated version of an anthology, heavily edited to suit the sensibilities of Renaissance Era royalty, created from translated books to suit the sensibilities of Middle Ages clergy, from non-eyewitness accounts of events that may never have happened, I'm sure...

"Living not off bread alone but nothing but the word of God"

Well that's gibberish. Did God not think to consider a sub-editor in amongst all that other editing that got you to this version of the English version of the anthology?

 

[Ghost Lap]

...at the time of the story Christianity didn't exist, Jesus was Jewish and the temple in question was not just Jewish, but one of the most important Jewish temples in existence, and his dad's house! In referring to it as a 'so-called temple' you're interpreting it in a manner that is way off base with the original text.

I call it a "so called Temple" because what kind of Temple promotes practices that are in opposition with the ways of God, I guess the reaction of Jesus shows he may have shared a similar view.

Wasn't Jesus known to have said that "The kingdom of Heaven is within you".

Or as Corinthians 6:19 lays it out - Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

I think if you look deep enough into the texts there's a common spiritual theme that points to the idea that the true dwelling place of God's spirit is within yourself or rather your own soul/spirit. There's a reason why Jesus advocated true prayer as by going into your room, shutting the door and talking to your Father in the 'secret place' and listening to the voice of God within your own spirit.

 

[ItsHim]

I guess the question is would you rather follow the standards and rules of God's ways as set by Christ himself or would you follow the standards and traditions set by man based off the teachings of Christ but edited to fit in with the workings of the world at the given time.

„From a Catholic viewpoint, the primacy of the bishop of Rome is largely derived from his role as the apostolic successor to Saint Peter, to whom primacy was conferred by Jesus, who gave Peter the Keys of Heaven and the powers of "binding and loosing", naming him as the "rock" upon which the Church would be built.“ That’s from the Wikipedia page on The Pope. So I really wouldn’t call him a „mere human“ and as I said before, born as a Roman Catholic and raised as a Roman Catholic that’s the end of the discussion.

Abandoning the Roman Church equals abandoning god himself, no matter what other religions might promise you.

And as I mentioned before I find religions like Shintoism a lot more charming. I like the idea that a mountain or a stone or a tree could have a soul or be a deity, one can pick from a myriad of holy spirits, whichever suits one best at any given moment, etc, etc.

But at the end of the day I’m an agnostic. It’s ok for me that you believe in god. If it fills your life and makes you happy, go for it. I’m happy not to believe in any higher beings, there isn’t a gap in my life because of that, I don’t find my life or the life of the next person any less valuable and fulfilling.

And that’s where I come full circle in that I don’t quite understand why maybe you and certainly many deeply religious people feel so threatened by folks like me and have the urge to convert me.

Live and let live, and don’t be an asshole. That’s my M.O.

 

[Ghost Lap]

And as I mentioned before I find religions like Shintoism a lot more charming. I like the idea that a mountain or a stone or a tree could have a soul or be a deity, one can pick from a myriad of holy spirits, whichever suits one best at any given moment, etc, etc.

I too am open minded on such matters, I was going to reply to someone earlier who mentioned about the absurdity of God creating the entire universe just for the sake of spiritual growth for us here on earth. I was going to mention that perhaps there is life tingling about everywhere in the vast cosmos unawares to us, and that perhaps even celestial objects such as the sun and earth itself have a greater form of consciousness or spirit. I didn't bother though because I knew they'd be predictably close minded to the matter and attempt to shoot down such ideas down with so called hard-science.

And that’s where I come full circle in that I don’t quite understand why maybe you and certainly many deeply religious people feel so threatened by folks like me and have the urge to convert me.

I'm not threatened by you because I don't even know you, and what makes you think I'm targeting you specifically and trying to convert you or anyone else here.

 

[Exorcet]

I didn't bother though because I knew they'd be predictably close minded to the matter and attempt to shoot down such ideas down with so called hard-science.

Open mindedness is not saying yes to everything. And there really anything to argue with besides science. It is literally the collection of all known facts.

 

[Ghost Lap]

Open mindedness is not saying yes to everything. And there really anything to argue with besides science. It is literally the collection of all known facts.

It's also not automatically saying no to everything that comes your way.

Pure science is a lot of facts, then there's a lot of theoretical science based off of those facts. You need to be careful not to mistake the two for the same thing.

For example someone on here earlier claiming that suffering exists because of natural selection is not a fact. That's an opinion formed off of the basis of a scientific theory and then branded as a fact.

 

[Famine]

Oh look, a religiousist misrepresenting science and specific scientific terminology. That's never happened before.

Pure science is a lot of facts, then there's a lot of theoretical science based off of those facts.

There's really no such thing as a "fact" in the scientific method; we only have things that have proven resistant to all attempts to disprove to date, but may be disproven in the future.

Additionally, theory is the highest form of knowledge because it's a unified explanation of all information in that particular sphere.

 

[Ghost Lap]

There's really no such thing as a "fact" in the scientific method; we only have things that have proven resistant to all attempts to disprove to date, but may be disproven in the future.

Why don't you tell that to the guy above me then who said "It is literally the collection of all known facts".

And as you pointed out the scientific method is constantly ever evolving and changing, what's considered fact today may be considered laughable 100 years from now. It's just quite funny how all you guys seem to put most of your faith into it and feel the need to so rigourously defend it every time someone puts it into question.

 

[Famine]

And as you pointed out the scientific method is constantly ever evolving and changing

No, I didn't - because it isn't. That's the second time today you've invented something I didn't say in response to what I did.

It's just quite funny how all you guys seem to put most of your faith into it

It doesn't require faith. Weird you don't seem to get that.

 

[Ghost Lap]

but may be disproven in the future.

Because the scientific method is ever evolving and changing perhaps?

Of course you don't want to address the first part of my post though because your true colours are beginning to show just a tad bit.

 

[Famine]

Because the scientific method is ever evolving and changing perhaps?

No.

Of course you don't want to address the first part of my post though because

I didn't feel the need to. A lot of people get the concept of "facts" in science wrong, but very few misrepresent it on purpose - as you did in your post, along with misrepresenting what theory is, and twice lying about what I've said in my posts.

your true colours are beginning to show just a tad bit.

Bold call from someone who has directly lied about what I've said twice in under four hours.

If you feel the need to literally make up what other people are saying in order to respond to them, you don't belong on this site.